Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Monday, June 25, 2018

Video: A woman paramedic on Gaza’s frontlines


The Electronic Intifada 25 June 2018
Sondos Ashour is a 27-year-old Palestinian paramedic in Gaza.
She attends the Great March of Return to aid the injured and support female protesters.
“Some people in the community don’t accept me as a working female,” she told The Electronic Intifada.
But her ultimate dream is to return to her original hometown of Jaffa.
“I want to say to the whole world: we want to live,” Ashour said.
“Unite with us to break this Israeli occupation.”
Video by Mohammed Al Mobayed, Mohammed Al Tanani and Hind Khoudary.

Saudi, UAE, Egypt, Jordan back Trump’s Israel-Palestine plan: Report


Four Arab countries happy to see US sideline Abbas as it seeks to implement 'deal of the century', according to Israel Hayom

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has refused to negotiate with the US after their Jerusalem move. (AFP)

Monday 25 June 2018 
Four Arab countries are backing Donald Trump’s plan for a settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, according to an Israeli newspaper, and are willing to sideline the PA’s President Mahmoud Abbas to see it done.
According to a report in Israel Hayom, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Jordan told Jared Kushner, the US President Trump’s son-in-law and the man charged with solving the Israel-Palestine issue, and envoy Jason Greenblatt they were behind Washington’s so-called “deal of the century”.
Israel Hayom, a daily newspaper owned by billionaires Miriam and Sheldon Adelson, reported that it spoke to officials from the four Arab countries.
The officials are said to have told the paper that their countries have decided to back the US plan regardless of whether Abbas and the PA engage with it.
In the report, a “top Egyptian official” says the countries are unanimous in their position that were the US to go over Abbas’ head and attempt to implement the settlement plan, they would not be opposed to it.
Since taking the presidency, Trump has often framed himself as the man to finally negotiate an end to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
However, in recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, he has been accused by Abbas and the PA of clearly favouring the Israelis and therefore excluding the US from the role of honest dealmaker.
The Palestinians seek East Jerusalem, occupied by Israel since the 1967 Middle East war, as the capital of a future Palestinian state.
Enraged by the Trump administration’s stance, Abbas has refused to engage with the US’ attempts to implement its Israel-Palestine strategy.

Deal or no deal

Though yet to be announced, many of the details of Trump’s “deal of the century” appear to be common knowledge.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who has been at the forefront of efforts to end the Israeli occupation and set up a Palestinian state for decades, told MEE last week the “deal of the century” was no deal at all.
He said Washington was already implementing its strategy on the ground, regardless of the Palestinians and their interests.
The Americans had become "nothing else than spokespeople for the Israeli occupation", Erekat said, adding that the US intention was to "normalise Israeli apartheid".
According to the Israel Hayom report, however, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Cairo and Amman are not sympathetic to the PA’s position and reject Abbas’ own rejection of Trump’s settlement.
They see Abbas’ refusal to engage with the Americans as a misstep. MEE reported in Marchthat Abbas had been handed a copy of the US plan by Saudi officials, yet refused to look at it.
'Arab states will not be the ones to throw a wrench ‎in the wheels of the peace process'
- Jordanian official
According to the Israeli daily, a senior Jordanian official said Kushner and Greenblatt were told the ‎‎"Arab states will not be the ones to throw a wrench ‎in the wheels of the peace process, and that Abbas' ‎continued refusal to work with the Americans will ‎lead to a regional peace plan being launched without ‎him."‎
They did, however, underline that “they would not be party to any ‎deal that compromises Palestinian interests”, the report said.
"Despite the strategic mistakes made by Abu Mazen ‎‎[Abbas] and his people," an Egyptian official told Israel Hayom, "Kushner and Greenblatt were ‎told, in no uncertain terms, that the Palestinians ‎deserve an independent Palestinian state with East ‎Jerusalem as its capital."‎
"Kushner agreed to the Arab nations' demand and made ‎in [sic] clear during his meetings with [Jordan's] King ‎Abdullah and [Egyptian] President [Abdel-Fattah] el-‎Sissi that the interests of the Palestinian people ‎will not be harmed if the regional peace plan is ‎introduced without the Palestinian leadership's ‎cooperation," he said. ‎

Mohammed bin Salman Has Thrown the Palestinians Under the Bus

The United States and Arab governments have abandoned the Palestinian cause and believe they can browbeat Mahmoud Abbas into submission.

Mahmoud Abbas waits to address the United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters, September 20, 2017 in New York City. (DREW ANGERER/GETTY IMAGES)


No automatic alt text available.
BY -
 

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman met with Jason Greenblatt and Jared Kushner — U.S. President Donald Trump’s hand-picked advisors on Middle East peace — last week to discuss humanitarian projects in the Gaza Strip. The duo then moved on to Qatar for more talks on how to ease conditions in Gaza as part of an effort to promote Trump’s much-vaunted peace plan.

The focus on Gaza will likely raise the ire of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Even before it began, the trip was characterized by top Abbas aides as “meaningless” and a “waste of time,” but Greenblatt and Kushner’s whirlwind visit to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Qatar, and Egypt is happening — with or without the Palestinians.

The Ramallah-based Palestinian leadership has been boycotting U.S. officials since December, when Trump announced he would move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which he then proceeded to recognize as Israel’s capital.

For months, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has eyed the close ties between the Trump administration and some Persian Gulf states with disdain. In a closed-door meeting in New York in March with Jewish leaders, Mohammed bin Salman reportedly slammed the Palestinians for missing opportunities for peace, downplayed the importance of their cause, and said they should accept any deal offered to them.

His remarks, according to the Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, citing a source who was in the room, stunned attendees to the point that some “literally fell off their chairs” — a far cry from when then-Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz threatened to break off ties with the United States in 2001 unless Washington acted to stop Israel’s attacks on Palestinians during the Second Intifada.\

Saudi Arabia’s increasingly warm bilateral ties with Israel have not gone unnoticed by the PA, which has also noted Trump’s insistence — from the outset of his presidency — that striking an “ultimate deal” between Israel and the Palestinians would require the involvement of the broader region.
The PA watched in shock as Riyadh gave permission to Air India to fly to Tel Aviv through Saudi airspace and later as Mohammed bin Salman, in an interview with the Atlantic, acknowledged Israel’s right to its “own land.” And while the PA boycotted a White House meeting on Gaza’s humanitarian crisis in March, several Arab countries — including Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia — attended, as did Israel.

Palestinians are no longer the focal point of the regional agenda, and PA leaders have grown increasingly uneasy as some Arab leaders have shifted their attention to Iran, fixating on Tehran’s involvement in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria.

Arab leaders frequently profess support for the Palestinian cause, but Palestinians know that these proclamations are often sanctimonious. Much of the aid pledged by Arab donors for Gaza’s post-2014 war reconstruction never materialized, and the flow of government aid to the region has all but dried up. Instead, the diplomatic focus of Arab governments has veered primarily to domestic woes and stability, regional adversaries such as Iran, inter-Arab disputes, and fighting off Islamic militancy.

Arab leaders “now not only have their own priorities that subordinate the question of Palestine, but they have every incentive” to stop the public from rallying around the Palestinian cause “because they see it as a threat,” said Shibley Telhami, a professor at the University of Maryland and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Whereas these governments once were able to “use public obsession with Palestine as a distraction, now people use it as a wedge because they can’t confront the government directly” on local grievances such as unemployment and poverty, Telhami added.

Though Mohammed bin Salman has paid lip service to the Palestinians in public — claiming that closer ties between Riyadh and other Gulf states and Israel could only happen with significant progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process — he has demonstrated a willingness to leverage the region’s various conflicts and Riyadh’s fear of Iranian influence to shift the focus away from their cause.

Palestinians now realize that they can no longer depend on their traditional allies in the Arab world.
The asymmetry of power between Israelis and Palestinians, coupled with the Palestinians’ internal divisions and utter dependence on external aid, has also left them with very little leverage.

One of their last options would be to turn to the international community, as they have in recent years, by seeking to join international organizations, treaties, and conventions as part of their strategy to achieve statehood through global forums or lodging international criminal complaints in the hope that it would pressure Israel and call it to account for its actions.

This tactic has proved successful at times. But the current international climate differs immensely from the one that existed under President Barack Obama, and the Trump administration has made it clear that it will be a strong opponent to the Palestinians at the United Nations.

“The opportunities [for] bilateral engagement to get some sort of recognition of a Palestinian state, which had been the go-to international diplomatic strategy of the PLO, [do] not seem to have as much traction today,” said Yousef Munayyer, the executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights.

The lack of external assistance provides an opportunity to look inward. Palestinians have to deal with a domestic legitimacy crisis: The PA has no succession plan to speak of despite an aging leadership headed by an 82-year-old Abbas, who has been president since 2005.

The progress made on the intra-Palestinian reconciliation between the PA and Hamas last year dissipated after what the PA labeled an assassination attempt on its prime minister, Rami Hamdallah, and intelligence chief Majed Faraj in Gaza in March and the recent crackdown on Palestinians in the West Bank protesting the PA’s punitive measures in Hamas-run Gaza.

Without a unified government or a clear, solid succession process, the PA leadership may very well find itself having to pick one of two bad options. The PA can either participate in a rigged peace process under even less favorable terms than in the past — or forge its own path without the support of Western donor aid that the administration is dependent on to function. This would mean that the livelihoods of 145,000 civil servants in the occupied Palestinian territories would disappear.

But for ordinary Palestinians, it has presented an opportunity to further engage in peaceful resistance, whether by supporting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel or by participating in other nonviolent tactics like the “Great March of Return,” a monthlong protest held along the fence separating Israel from Gaza, which was met with lethal force from Israeli soldiers.

This grassroots activism has the potential — further down the line — to give rise to a leadership that is more reflective of its constituency. (According to a recent poll, more than two-thirds of Palestinians want Abbas to resign.) Though BDS has not made much of a dent on Israel economically, successive cancellations of trips to Israel by world-renowned actors and singers have done more damage to the country’s reputation than the PA joining the European Federation of Crohn’s & Ulcerative Colitis Associations.

Palestinians’ frustration with the PA’s failure to bring them closer to independence and the shift in Arab states’ priorities have made the contours of a U.S.-Saudi-Israeli deal more evident: a demilitarized state without Jerusalem as a capital, territory with limited sovereignty and geographical contiguity, and an inadequate solution to the question of refugees.

According to a report in the New Yorker, Kushner and Mohammed bin Salman have outlined a Middle East strategic alliance that would focus on thwarting Iran and getting the Palestinians to agree on a peace deal. The Saudi crown prince reportedly said, in describing their strategy to get the deal done, “I’m going to deliver the Palestinians, and he [Trump] is going to deliver the Israelis.”

The king-to-be’s comments no doubt came as music to the Israeli prime minister’s ears. Benjamin Netanyahu believes that this new regional reality makes reaching a solution with the Palestinians less pressing — or even entirely unnecessary.

That’s a far cry from 2002, when the Arab Peace Initiative, championed by Saudi Arabia, presented Israel with an opportunity to integrate itself into the region in exchange for withdrawing from the Palestinian territories it still occupies to this day. Israel refused the deal, instead peppering the West Bank with more settlements as successive U.S. administrations engaged in an endless cycle of peace processing and turned a blind eye as Israelis established new facts on the ground.

Now, regional changes have paved the way for another opportunity for Israel to formally normalize relations with its neighbors — but this time without a peace deal.Saudi Arabia and the UAE have moved from secretly courting the Israelis to overtly conveying their readiness and desire to build a relationship beyond their current clandestine links.

Today, most of Israel’s traditional enemies have either been weakened or neutralized: The Palestinian leadership has been co-opted through U.S. largesse; Jordan and Egypt’s peace deals have weathered even the thorniest of diplomatic crises; and Iraq and Syria have been carved up by the campaign to oust the Islamic State.

But not everyone is convinced that a de facto alliance with some Arab states against Iran will yield regional peace without real progress on the Palestinian issue. “Those who see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not in terms of win-win but in terms of zero-sum think they could use better relations and an alliance of interests between Israel and the Arab world as a way to bypass the Palestinian issue,” said Nadav Tamir, a senior advisor for governmental and international affairs at the Peres Center for Peace, speaking at J Street’s annual conference in April.

Netanyahu and the Trump administration, however, agree that a deal can be reached by virtue of Israel’s warm relations with Arab countries that will in turn pressure the Palestinians into submission. As far as the Trump administration is concerned, “this is a transaction — you just have to find the selling price,” said William Quandt, a former National Security Council member in the Nixon and Carter administrations, speaking at a conference in Washington in March. “And if the Saudis are prepared to finance it, how can the Palestinians … say no to the Saudis?” added Quandt, who was part of the U.S. negotiating team at Camp David that led to the Israel-Egypt peace treaty in 1979. “We’re stuck with an American policy that leads nowhere, and when it fails, there’s no fallback.”

Palestinians have learned from their past that Arab governments’ support is as volatile as the region’s changing political terrain. Once again, Palestinian leaders find themselves isolated and fragmented while Arab and Western governments ratchet up the pressure. Their choices today are limited: They can end security cooperation with Israel; dismantle the PA altogether and force Israel to take responsibility for its military occupation; or embrace civil disobedience and the tactics of the BDS movement on a national level.

They could also acquiesce to Mohammed bin Salman and his co-conspirators’ plan for the region while focusing on isolating Hamas and punishing Palestinians in Gaza for having the misfortune of being born there — but not without facing the wrath of their own people.

Kim Jong Un’s game is going to plan

Trump scores own-goal against G7 Allies, Canada, Mexico and China 


article_image
Kim: "How about grabbing two of those kittens you love?"

Anti-Trump US media claims that this picture says it all!

US monthly trade deficit 1950-2017

Kumar David-June 23, 2018, 6:38 pm

Events are unfolding, spot on as foreseen in this column six weeks ago ("Kim Jong Un’s game-plan"; Sunday Island, 13 May). I attributed to wily Kim short-term, medium and long term strategies; first make an American military strike impossible and secure his regime, second ease sanctions and enhance economic ties with the South (SK) and China, and third reunification of the Peninsula on terms that ensure his and his cronies’ survival. Here is an extract from that column.

1. (a) Defuse all possibility of a US first-strike and secure the import of fuels and consumer goods. (b) Fish for capital injection, albeit on a limited scale, from the South and China to support a mini-Deng Xiao Ping (mini-DXP) initiatives.

2. Campaign for the lifting of sanctions in exchange for "complete denuclearisation; a complete nuclear free Korean Peninsula" to which Kim and Moon Jae-in committed in the Panmunjom Declaration of 27 April 2018.

3. Secure reunification of the Peninsula on a formula that will guarantee the regime, its principal functionaries and the military, safety for say 50 years – One Country Two Systems but very different from Hong Kong-China or East-West Germany.

The omission in my piece was to overlook Russia. The quintet that will count in the economic game in the Far East in coming years will be China, Japan, two Koreas and Russia. The US will be marginalised in the economic game; it cannot contribute much – it is broke, Trump envisages sucking investment back home not driving it abroad, and high tech is not important for North Korea (NK) yet.

The operative portion of the Kim-Trump declaration reads:-

"Convinced that the establishment of new US-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following:

* The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.

* The United States and DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.

* Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula

* The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified".

How will the three strategic perspectives I attributed to Kim pan out? He has achieved his crucial objective; preventing military action and open regime-change efforts. Of course both sides will subvert any clause in the declaration that does not align with their real intentions, but that’s different; let’s work with the declaration and official statements. Kim has given away nothing, zilch, zero! He did commit to complete denuclearization of the "Korean Peninsula," (sic!) but said nothing on what will be done and given no timetable for verification or destruction of the arsenal. Crucially nothing was said about NK’s missile capability. "Fire and Fury" and wiping NK off the face of the earth, all this is passé. All Trump got was bland agreement to "mutual confidence building (which) promotes denuclearisation"; he has reconciled America to a nuclear North Korea for the foreseeable future.

A nuclear North Korea is ok with me; a nuclear US is far more dangerous than a nuclear-any-other-country. America is the only country that has used nuclear weapons in war and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in so doing. Nevertheless I do agree that Kim and Trump talking to each other and the relaxation of tensions overall is an excellent state of play.

Kim’s next stage

Having scored an innings victory in the First Test, Kim now faces a more daunting Second. He needs a NK-SK-China-Russia-Jap sanctions busting and investment strategy. China, Russia and SK can now legitimately ask the Security Council "Why sanctions any longer when Trump is drooling all over Kim over Singapore like a sugar daddy?" Here are tweets that have got American media (Fox News included) and the GoP establishment flustered. "I trust Kim; the US press is the enemy"; "NK is no longer a nuclear threat"; "Kim loves his people; his people love him"; "I will stop the War Games (military exercises with Japan and SK); they are provocative and expensive". What a love fest!

I am in USA at the moment and the media (pro and anti-Trump), the establishment and folks in general are perplexed. Everyone knew that Trump was a hare-brained crackpot and no one could say what he would say next or in what direction stagger; but now it has gone surreal. However, one must grant that Trump’s surreal diplomacy, outlandish threats and Security Council sanctions prodded NK to the negotiating table.

Meanwhile ultra-right pro-Trump candidates are pulling ahead in GoP Senate and House primaries but for that very reason are likely to lose in November. Meanwhile, in Sri Lanka Trump cultists claim the summit was: "A massive victory for the President on many fronts. He promised to pull the US military out in exchange for ‘denuking’ and brought NK to a neutral position and possibly a future ally. He is the first US leader to push back powerful military lobbies and despite his cowboy image a statesman who treated Kim as an equal". This is formidable support from a former leftist.

Trump cannot resolve US trade deficit

I will explain why the US trade deficit imbroglio is unsolvable. The deficit is linked to an overarching financial bubble, high returns to capital, and production costs not matched by high enough productivity. Unfair trade practices are not the deeper cause. The US cannot reverse its escalating trade deficit under free-trade, which it championed for decades when it suited America to do so. Why? The lifestyle of the elite and living standards of the people make US manufactured goods price uncompetitive against global rivals. Hence consumers, mainly American consumers rush to buy Mexican durables, Japanese cars and just about everything made in China.

US trade deficits began in the mid-1970s with the downturn in global capitalism. (See graph of monthly trade deficits; multiply by 12 for annual). The down turn was controlled till the mid-1990s by a vicious neo-liberal attack on welfare and wages. However the 1991 recession, the 1990s dot.com crash and the early 2000s belly-up of global capitalism pushed the trade deficit up again culminating in the 2008 crash. There was a technical rally at the end of the crash which could not be sustained. A picture is worth a thousand words and the graph saves me the thousand words. The deficit is endemic, it is organic and pertains to returns on capital, synthetic financing and higher living standards than can be sustained by higher productivity. America can’t compete; its technology though superior does not confer sufficient advantage.

Trump upended two days of economic diplomacy refusing to sign a joint statement with allies committing to free-trade. This has escalated into a trade war with the G7, Canada and Mexico. He mocked Canada’s prime minister as "very dishonest and weak" and his trade adviser Peter Navarro promised Justin Trudeau a "special place in hell". Outraged Canadians are calling for a consumer boycott of US goods. Canada is the most important market for US goods, importing US$300 billion worth a year and taking 18% of its exports, ahead of Mexico and China last year – food, entertainment (films and music), iPhones and Nikes. The US is the top destination for Canadian tourists - 42 million trips compared to Canada’s population of 36 million.

In parallel, Trump decided to impose 25% tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, accusing it, correctly, of intellectual property theft. Tariffs will first affect $34bn in annual trade; $16 billion will follow. The final list includes 1,100 items focused on its "Made-In-China-2025" plans to become dominant in high-tech. China responded with a list of 550 products, also covering about $34 billion to be subject to an additional 25% tariff. The list includes soybeans, corn, wheat, beef, pork, poultry and vehicles. A second list set to begin later covers coal, crude oil and gasoline. A head-on Pacific trade war that America cannot win is in full swing.

Allegations that China forces unfair transfer of US technology, steals intellectual property and refuses to give US companies fair market access are all true. Reducing technology theft and giving the US greater access to Chinese markets will narrow the $350 to $400 billion annual bilateral trade deficit with China, but not enough to reverse the US annual global trade deficit of $800 billion.

US tariffs have met fierce criticism from domestic companies and US farmers fearful of retaliation. They have had a mixed political reaction, winning praise from Democrats and opposition from Republicans who typically favour free trade. The IMF says Trump’s trade policies will hurt the US economy and undermine the world trade. While the IMF expects the trade dispute to have limited economic effect - slowing global GDP by less than one percent – it is concerned about how the fight would affect sentiment. "What is more critical and more difficult to factor in at the moment is the impact on confidence" declares the IMF. Global stock-markets have not crashed – not yet!

Gang raped and set on fire: ICC pushes to investigate Myanmar Rohingya atrocities

Exclusive: Evidence of horrific treatment emerges as the Hague gives Myanmar deadline to respond to claims

A Rohingya refugee child carries water during rain in a refugee camp in Bangladesh. ICC prosecutors argue they have the remit investigate allegations of forced deportations and genocide. Photograph: Munir Uz Zaman/AFP/Getty Images

Thaslima Begum and 
Harrowing accounts of Rohingya women tied to trees and raped for days by Myanmar’s military and men being pushed into mass graves, doused with petrol and set alight have been sent to the international criminal court.

The evidence has been sent by a coalition of Bangladesh organisations to ICC prosecutors who are pushing to investigate allegations of forced deportation from a country where it has no jurisdiction.
ICC judges met behind closed doors at the Hague this week to begin their discussions and documents seen exclusively by the Guardian will form part of the case for an investigation.

The legal argument for an ICC investigation is being led by prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, and it is the first time such a case has been considered by the court. While Bangladesh is a member state, which gives the ICC power to investigate crimes committed there, Myanmar is not, and denies any ethnic cleansing was carried out against the Rohingya.

Bensouda argues the cross-border nature of the forced deportation of the Rohingya into Bangladesh means it could legally fall within the ICC’s remit.

Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi has blamed ‘hate narratives’ outside the country for the tensions. Photograph: Hein Htet/EPA

Myanmar has until 27 July to respond to the allegations and demonstrate that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the Rohingya case.

The request is unlikely to be welcomed by the Myanmar government. On Wednesday, a social media account run by the office of Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi quoted her berating “hate narratives from outside the country” which have fuelled tensions between Muslim Rohingya and Buddhist Rakhine communities.

More than 700,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar since August 2017 following a campaign of violence carried out by the military, which saw villages razed, women and children raped and abused and tens of thousands killed. The mass killings have been described as both ethnic cleansing and as “having all the hallmarks of genocide” by the UN.

Gang raped, then left for dead

A document submitted to the ICC by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) and its partner Odhikar, seen by the Guardian, included the story of Marwa, 10, whose family were shot dead before she, along with a group of other young girls from her village, were taken to a nearby school where they were repeatedly gang raped.

Also in the submission was the account of Khurshida, 20, who described how she was held captive with several other Rohingya women, before being stripped, tied to trees and raped for days. Khurshida eventually lost consciousness and was dumped outside the camp by soldiers who assumed she was dead.
The ICC must be brave and accept it has jurisdiction.
Sir Geoffrey Nice, former prosecutor
They also document the case of Sakila, 25, who hid as her family were locked inside a house that was set alight by soldiers, and Nur Jahan, 31, was raped violently and repeatedly in front of her seven-year-old daughter.

Other Bangladesh organisations have argued that the sexual and gender-based nature of much of the violence committed against the Rohingya is fundamental to the case and that ICC action should be taken to put the perpetrators on trial.

Human rights lawyer Wayne Jordash QC believed that the ICC’s request for Myanmar to submit their own supporting documents was an indicator that the court would be pushing for an investigation. “If I were Myanmar, I’d start preparing for an ICC examination on the crime of deportation at the very least,” said Jordash. “Its continued lack of cooperation may prove not to be an obstacle in this case, with so many of the witnesses now in Bangladesh and the mounting evidence against it.”

The ICC has been accused of racism in the past for focusing most of its efforts on African nations, and many believe the court is looking to create more balance by turning its attention to atrocities in Asia.


A soldier stand guard in Maungdaw township, Rakhine state, western Myanmar. Photograph: Nyunt Win/EPA

Sir Geoffrey Nice, who led the prosecution of Serbian president Slobodan MiloÅ¡ević at the Hague, believes the prosecutor’s application will inevitably succeed.

“The ICC must be brave and accept it has jurisdiction and ensure these crimes are properly investigated” he said. “Anything otherwise would be a huge setback for justice and undermine the court’s very authority. This is the only clear route available for the Rohingya. We all have a collective responsibility to ensure the perpetrators are held to account.”

Confusion in Maldivian opposition is to Yameen’s advantage


logoSaturday, 23 June 2018

The ongoing confusion in the ranks of the Maldivian opposition, barely three months before the presidential election, works to the advantage of the incumbent President and candidate of the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), Abdulla Yameen.

The presidential contest will be between an incumbent who places economic development and social welfare above the norms of Western-style democracy, and a medley of opposition parties which wants restoration of democracy first and foremost.

But the key requirement for victory is unity in thought and action – an attribute which the ruling PPM under Yameen has displayed and which the opposition appears to be lacking now in the critical last few months before the contest.

Opposition in disarray

Presently, the opposition is in disarray, in contrast with what one saw in March 2017, when the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) led by Mohamed Nasheed and Maumoon Abdul Gayoom; the Jumhoory Party (JP) led by Gasim Ibrahim; and the Islamist Adhaalath Party (AP) led by Sheikh Imran Abdulla signed a “historic declaration” to work together to restore democracy in the Maldives. The grouping called itself the “Reform Alliance”.

The four political heavyweights resolved to protect ownership of the land, sea and natural resources; find a solution to the political discord afflicting the country; safeguard civil and political rights arrogated from citizens; and ensure elections held in the Maldives are free and fair, and in which, candidates of political parties are allowed to contest.

The alliance was to put up a common candidate against Yameen in the September 2018 presidential election.

Thirst for individual power

Everything appeared to be working well for the opposition in the subsequent months. It spoke with one voice, kept up the media blitz against the Yameen regime, and garnered full support for its agenda from the Western bloc and India, the regional power.

But, as it often happens in South Asian countries, as the election approached, individual ambitions and thirst for individual power got the better of collective goals. Nasheed was the first to break ranks, when he declared himself the Presidential candidate of the MDP and held a “primary” in which he was the sole candidate. As expected, he won hands down.

This was done in defiance of the law of the land, which said that he could not contest while serving a jail sentence. When he was Maldivian President from 20108 to 2012, he had abducted a criminal court judge when abduction is an act of terrorism as per a 1990 law. He was sentenced for 13 years of which he had served only a few years before being allowed to go on medical parole to the UK. After getting asylum in the UK while he was there, Nasheed refused to come back and complete his sentence. He has been leading the MDP from the UK and Sri Lanka with a remote control.

Nasheed’s example of putting himself as the candidate was followed with alacrity by Gasim Ibrahim of the Jumhoory Party. In June, Gasim unilaterally announced that he is the presidential candidate and appointed a shadow cabinet to boot.

But the Gasim cabinet had no place for the MDP, though it had the leader of the Adhaalath Party Sheikh Imran and former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s two daughters. Gayoom’s son, Faris, was made the shadow Parliament Speaker.

Gasim’s “allies” were naturally shocked and vowed not to join his proposed government. Despite its inclusion, the Adhaalath Party quickly took to Twitter to deny any agreement with Gasim and insisted that it is committed to working together with the other parties as part of the original coalition pact.

One of former President Gayoom’s top aides told the media that the 80-year-old leader (now in jail for plotting the overthrow of the Yameen regime), remains part of the ongoing talks to nominate a joint opposition candidate.

Rubbing salt into the wound 

Gasim rubbed salt into the wound by saying that the names included his shadow government were picked “after considering the likelihood of the chosen ones working together after the elections”. The non-inclusion of Nasheed and the MDP is therefore a clear indication that Gasim does not think that he can work with them in a government after the election victory.

However, Gasim’s deputy, Ameen Ibrahim, tried to correct the impression by saying that the “shadow cabinet” was merely a proposal by Gasim, and that it posed no threat whatsoever to the joint efforts of the opposition alliance to field a common candidate.

Gasim’s proposal was only a contingency plan in case the opposition alliance fails to reach a consensus over the common candidate, Ameen said.

Regarding MDP’s noticeable absence from Gasim’s cabinet, Ameen cryptically said: “Gasim’s thoughts are positive about MDP’s leadership as well.” But he went on to point out that the MDP had also finalised its candidate unilaterally.

“The JP fully respects MDP’s decision and the MDP should reciprocate the courtesy,” Ameen said indicate a deep rift.

But the question as to whether Gasim or Nasheed can contest the Presidential election remains. Gasim is above the age limit (65 years) and is also a fugitive from the law. Nasheed too is absconding.

Nasheed cannot contest this time as he has many years to go before he completes his 13-year sentence. The Elections Commission has already declared MDP’s “primary” as null and void as the lone candidate was ineligible to contest for the country’s presidency.

Nature of Maldivian politics

A point that gives a clue to the nature of Maldivian politics is that neither Gasim nor Nasheed has thought of putting up another candidate to fight in their place. “It’s either me or none,” seems to be the motto. Such an attitude might result in the opposition’s handing the match to Yameen uncontested.

In India, in contrast, if a leader is unable to contest he will put up a proxy. For example, when Laloo Prasad Yadav was ousted as Chief Minister of Bihar in 1997, he made his wife Rabri Devi the Chief Minister.

Sources in Maldives say that the NDP, JP and other parties all have a number of competent leaders who can contest if the main leader is disqualified. But neither Gasim nor Nasheed would allow any others to contest. The moment somebody shows signs of ambition, he would be quashed, a source said.

The other handicap the opposition is suffering from is the absence of its top leaders in situ. While Gasim and Nasheed are in self-exile (and also “serving” a prison sentence at home) others like Maumoom Abdul Gayoom are in jail.

Nasheed’s absence 

The absence of Nasheed is particularly palpable because he is the quintessential agitator, a street fighter, and a youth leader. He established himself as a valiant pro-democracy agitator when he led the heroic non-violent struggle against the 30-year dictatorship of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

While Nasheed’s father and grandfather had used violent methods to oust Gayoom and failed, young Nasheed used non-violence and succeeded in his mission. For this, he has the support of the Maldivian youth and the media, for which, freedom is the sine qua non of existence.

Yameen’s strength

One of the reasons why there is no mass agitation against Yameen’s regime, despite its record of jailing opponents and its inability to dialogue with and win over opponents, is that Nasheed is not in the country.

Yameen’s strength stems from his ability to use power and also his accent on the promotion of economic development. His managerial talent is far superior to that of Nasheed.

“Having lived in the UK, Nasheed had modern ideas and wanted to introduce modern institutions when he was President between 2008 and 2012. But where he failed miserably was in implementation. He was more of a showman than a doer. Yameen, on the other hand, is dour and withdrawn, but has meticulously implemented whatever projects he had undertaken,” said a Yameen supporter.

Economic development vs. democracy

The 23 September presidential election will be a contest between economic development and democracy. Economic development undoubtedly has its supporters. But democracy too has a growing constituency since the 2008 revolution when Gayoom’s dictatorship was replaced by democracy.

No one can now take the Maldives back to dictatorship of the Gayoom era, even if the people are provided with good social security and full employment.

The Maldivian media, both formal and non-formal, have generally been pro-democracy and anti-Yameen. They do have an influence, given the fact that the Maldives has 100% literacy and Maldivians are inter-connected through the print and electronic media, a top of the drawer telecommunication system, and the social media.

Saudi women allowed to drive


-24 Jun 2018International Editor

Women across Saudi Arabia have been celebrating being able to drive for the first time after the world’s only ban was overturned – describing it as a historic moment, finally abolishing a glaring symbol of repression. But despite the euphoria, some female activists who campaigned against the driving ban are still in jail.

'Dumb, stupid' family separations harm children, says detention camp manager

Manager at camp close to US-Mexico border speaks out to decry Donald Trump’s ‘zero-tolerance’ immigration policy


Tents line the facility on the outskirts of a tiny town close to El Paso, Texas. Photograph: Courtesy HHS

Kevin Tripp in Tornillo, Texas-
A senior manager at a child detention camp in Texas, close to the Mexican border, spoke out on Monday to decry Donald Trump’s zero-tolerance immigration policy that had been tearing migrant families apart as “dumb”.

Speaking to journalists in what he said was an individual capacity, at the end of a special, supervised media tour of the facility in Tornillo, near El Paso, Texas, the manager, who asked not to be named, called family separations “a dumb, stupid decision”.

“All it did was harm children,” he said. The manager works for the private contractor BCFS, which is running the camp on behalf of the federal government.

“This operation would not be necessary had it not been for the separation.”

Despite an executive order from the president last week ordering that families would no longer be separated, 23 children at the camp in Tornillo remain apart from their parents or guardians, after crossing the border with them.

At the controversial facility of 22 large tents on the outskirts of the tiny town in western Texas, journalists were told that in addition to the 23 children who had been separated, 326 had entered the US by themselves.

Only 14 of the 326 children were girls, who are housed in separate tents from the boys.

The Guardian and a small group of other journalists toured the site on Monday morning after pressure on government agencies to show more transparency.

The government says it has made a start on reuniting the more than 2,000 children who have been separated from their parents. But the process has clearly only just begun.

In sweltering heat in the dusty little town, where fencing keeps the camp of neat brown tents mostly out of sight of the public, the manager said: “I’m totally against the separation.”

The children appeared to be well taken care of in terms of their basic physical needs. During the press tour, several dozen boys were seen playing soccer on an artificial grass field. A few teenage boys and girls told the Guardian they were “good”.

The contractor BCFS Health and Human Services is based in San Antonio, Texas, and is a contractor regularly used by the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal government agencies.

The contractor normally builds these types of shelters after natural disasters.


 An image provided by the HHS. Photograph: Courtesy HHS

The 13- to 17-year-old children are under the care of the US Department of Health and Human Services while the facility is under the control of the Department of Homeland Security.

Under a blistering summer day in the desert, around 30 boys played soccer on a recently-constructed artificial grass field.

Afterward, they took shelter in the shade of a tent and drank water. The boys appeared to be healthy and well cared for.

Staff at the Tornillo facility said most boys enjoy playing soccer and watching World Cup games on a live feed provided for them. The boys echoed this sentiment when the Guardian asked them who their favorite teams were in the World Cup. Most responded with “Brazil” or “Mexico”.

Government officials from HHS ran the media tour and told reporters to limit what they said to the children. Journalists were told only to exchange general pleasantries with the them.

After visiting the facilities for the boys, reporters asked to be able to see the girls, who seemed, during the short visit by the media, less outwardly happy in their surroundings than the boys.

The Guardian was shown the 20 tents where the boys live, which are arranged military-style in two rows of 10. Each tent is equipped with 20 beds. The tents were sturdy and clean.

Toys, books and educational materials were available – although some of it was in English. The Tornillo facility also includes medical staff, medical trucks, private showers and toilet facilities.
Those toilets and showers are the only place where the children aren’t constantly watched.

Inside a mobile command post, more than a dozen contractors watch over the migrants through security cameras. Large monitors and computer screens show the status of different children in the compound.

Officials with the federal government defend the controversial shelter, which the contractor was able to build in just a few days.

“We saw that we were getting close to capacity,” said Mark Weber, a spokesperson for HHS.
He explained that the children in Tornillo were brought from different HHS facilities as the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy began to swell the number of migrants is custody.

Only 23 children at Tornillo were separated from their parents – the rest crossed the border as unaccompanied minors. Weber said three children separated from their parents have already been reunited with parents or guardians. According to Weber and the contractor, the 23 remaining separated migrants have made contact with family or friends in the US.

The contractor who criticized the Trump separation policy is also worried about the fate of the babies being cared for at other facilities. Because they’re not able to talk, parent identification can be harder.
“There should be a DNA test,” the contractor said.

Weber from HHS was asked by the Guardian if the government will conduct DNA testing to prevent orphaned children. “We’ll consider everything,” he said, adding that parents and children are tracked by HHS and DHS throughout the process. However, many immigrants and their advocates have expressed frustration with the process.

During the tour, the media was also shown the call center where the teenagers are able to contact their families. Each child is monitored by a staff member who places the call and verifies the parent’s information before handing the phone to the child. Each child gets several calls per week.

The future of these children remains in question. The contractor said his contract – which he estimates will cost $10m – ends on 13 July. “My tasking is for 30 days,” he said.

Most doctors would give HIV prevention drugs to teens

hiv prevention

Lisa Rapaport- JUNE 25, 2018

(Reuters Health) - Last month U.S. regulators said a pill that helps prevent infection with HIV is safe for use by adolescents, and a study suggests most physicians would be willing to prescribe this medicine to teens.

So-called pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with Truvada, a daily pill combining the medicines tenofovir and emtricitabine, can lower the risk of getting HIV from sex by up to 90 percent,
according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Truvada has long been used to treat HIV and as a prevention strategy for adults.

The current study was conducted between October 2016 and January 2017, before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved PrEP for teens who weigh at least 35 kg (77 pounds).

Researchers surveyed 162 doctors who worked with adolescents and young adults. While 93 percent of the clinicians had heard of PrEP, only 35 percent had prescribed it.

About 65 percent of the survey participants said they would be willing to prescribe PrEP to adolescents, and another 19 percent were willing to refer teens to another clinician for the prescription.

Among those who were unwilling to prescribe it themselves, about two-thirds said they would prescribe it for teens if it had FDA approval for these patients.

“Everyone, including adolescents, should know whether they could benefit from PrEP,” said lead study author Dr. Geoffrey Hart-Cooper, a pediatrician at Stanford Children’s Health and a HIV prevention specialist at the San Francisco Department of Public Health.
Patients at the greatest risk who could benefit most from PrEP include young men and transgender men who have sex with men; people with HIV-positive sex partners or partners with unknown HIV status; and intravenous drug users, Hart-Cooper said by email.

Because sex practices can change over time, doctors should discuss this on a regular basis and continually reassess whether patients might benefit from PrEP, he advised.

“Having these early conversations with youth allows eligible adolescents and young adults to start PrEP earlier,” Hart-Cooper added. “If we continue to promote safe sex practices while ensuring every adolescent and young adult has access to PrEP in a timely manner, we can substantially decrease HIV rates - maybe even eliminate HIV in this generation.”

In the survey, more than half of the respondents said they had only treated a few teens and young adults with HIV. Just 15 percent of the clinicians reported treating many HIV-positive youth.
Beyond the timing of the study before PrEP won FDA approval for use in teens, another limitation of the study is that very few clinicians invited to participate in the survey chose to do so.

Still, the results suggest that some providers may still need to be educated about PrEP and made aware that it’s now approved for use in teens, said Matthew Beymer, a researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine and at the Los Angeles LGBT Center.

“I think the take-home message is that PrEP works well whether you are an adolescent (and over 77 pounds) or an adult provided you take your medication every day,” Beymer, who wasn’t involved in the study, said by email. “Teens should consider taking PrEP if they either have an indication for PrEP or feel that taking PrEP would reduce their concerns about contracting HIV.”

SOURCE: bit.ly/2lCdbZ3 Journal of Adolescent Health, online May 26, 2018.